( 1 ) PARTIES are related to each other. They are exerting their rights over the marks CHABI and KOHINOOR. The respondents are the sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner. The affairs of the firm known as M/s Kohinoor Paints Faridabad Ltd. was looked after by Shri Trilok Singh Sachdeva and his family members. The petitioner is the son of said Shri Trilok Singh Sachdeva. Shri Trilok Singh Sachdeva died on 2nd November,1992. It has been the case of the petitioner as set up in the plaint that he got a shock on the death of his father. He, therefore, did not object to the use of the mark CHABI and KOHINOOR by the respondents. There was, however, clear understanding between the family members i. e. the petitoner and respondents that as and when the petitioner s own business interest require, the respondents shall forthwith cease and desist from using the mark CHABI and KOHINOOR. The petitioner is holding more than 47% share in the company. The dispute within the family started when the petitioner informed the respondents that he was ready with the infrastructure to do his business, therefore, the respondent should cease and desist from using the mark CHABI and KOHINOOR.

( 2 ) IT was further the case of the petitioner that the respondents instead of desisting from using these marks issued public notice on 8th October,1994 claiming to be the Proprietor of trade mark KOHINOOR/ and CHABI CHHAP. They also served a legal notice on the petitioner on 10th October,1992 claiming to be the owner of trade mark CHABI and KOHINOOR and copyright in the carton. They ignored the terms of the ed of assignment dated 19th June,1992. The respondent tried to involve the petitioner in civil and criminal litigation. Apprehending the mischievous action on the part of the respondent, the petitioner filed a Civil suit.

( 3 ) THE respondents filed the written statement. With the written statement the repsondents also filed their counter claim. In the written statement the respondents plea was that the Company M/s Kohinoor Paints Faridabad (P) Ltd. is not an individual like plaintiff who is the registered Proprietor of the trade mark CHABI as well as of unregistered trade mark KOHINOOR. The respondent challenged the deed of assignment dated 19th June,1992. The recordal of the deed of assignment by the Registrar was also challenged by the respondent. The respondent in the meantime filed a cancellation petition against the order of the Registrar in the High Court. That petition was listed as CO. No. 19/94. Vide order dated 19th September,1995 High Court cancelled the recordal of the said deed of assignment on the ground that Registrar while passing that order did not afford opportunity to the respondents (petitioner in that case ).

( 4 ) PETITIONER filed replication to the written statement and reply to the counter claim. In reply petitioner pleaded complete history of the trade marks of the predecessor in interest and title. However, due to cancellation of recordal of assignment by the High Court in the said rectification proceedings, petitioner wanted to explain the facts in detail and to give complete particulars about the adoption and use of the trade marks by the predecessors in interest of the petitioner and to explain as to how petitioner acquired proprietorship right of the trade mark CHABI and KOHINOOR under the common law apart from becoming registered proprietor of trade mark CHABI by virtue of deed of assignment dated 19th June,1992. It was due to changed circumstances i. e. due to the decision of the High Court in rectification petition No. 19/94 that petitioner wanted to amend his plaint. He, therefore, filed an application under Oder 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code. The amendment sought was contested by the respondent on the ground that if allowed it would amount to setting up a new case. Instead of claiming the relief on the basis of deed of assignment, the petitioner was now trying to set up his claim superior to that of th